Static Climate Models In A Virtually Unknown Dynamic Atmosphere

[Tim Ball] None of the work of the IPCC bears investigation. They’re certain about what has and will happen based on computer models that claim to replicate the atmosphere. This is a serious and unjustifiable claim, but it is the basis of government policies on energy, environment, and economies.

Brendan O'Neill on 'extreme weather' hysteria | Australian Climate Madness

As has been said countless times on this blog, it is, of course, the classic example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis: ask a greenie to describe the kind of weather events that would not be consistent with global warming, and you'll get a stony silence. Because anything and everything is "consistent with" some global warming model somewhere. And I'm almost glad the warm-mongers continue to make these nonsensical claims, because every time they do, it moves them further away from proper science and into the realms of astrology.

- Bishop Hill blog - On the accountability of universities

I'm not sure why Simberg has used strikethrough style on the word "whitewashed". That the Climategate "inquiries" were devoid of any integrity is beyond question.

Simberg's hope for a meaningful inquiry will undoubtedly turn out to be forlorn. Universities do not investigate their own. They are accountable to nobody and, as Edward Acton showed during the CRU investigations, the vice-chancellors can thumb their noses at politicians with complete impunity.

The question is, why then should the public pay for them?

The New Nostradamus of the North: EU to get "toughest in the world" emission targets for cars

The EU climate queen Connie Hedegaard is once again talking nonsense. How on earth could these suggested measures "boost the competitiveness" of an European industry that is already now losing money!